This Is what happens when Leftist Governments Do Not Listen To the Genuine Concerns of People

by Guest Sun Mar 13, 2016 7:50 pm

First topic message reminder :

The party of German Chancellor Angela Merkel has suffered defeats in two of three states holding regional elections, exit polls suggest.
They indicate the Christian Democrats lost support in Baden-Wuerttemberg and Rhineland Palatinate, but remain the largest party in Saxony-Anhalt.
The anti-migrant AfD achieved gains in all three states, exit polls indicate.
The elections were seen as a test of support for Chancellor Merkel's policy of accommodating refugees.
More than a million migrants and refugees entered Germany in 2015.
German power is the real key to Europe
Migrant crisis: Will Merkel be left out in the cold?
Profile: Angela Merkel
Profile: AfD leader Frauke Petry
In the western state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, a former stronghold of the conservative Christian Democrats (CDU), support for the party reached a historic low of about 27%, the exit polls suggest.
They say the Green-led coalition currently in power won the election.
In Saxony-Anhalt, a poor, eastern state where the CDU and the Social Democrats govern together, that coalition looks set to remain in office but the exit polls say Alternative Fuer Deutschland (AdF) won about 22% of the vote.
The Social Democrats are set maintain their hold on Rhineland-Palatinate, a state the CDU had hoped to capture.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35796831

by Guest Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:57 pm

I don't think Boris comes across like an ordinary guy in the street Stardesk, I think he comes across as bumbling numpty, which is what he wants you to think. He's just in it for Boris and has done nothing for London.

by eddie Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:55 pm

Boris is an English Trump. A twin.
They're separated at birth.

by Ben Reilly Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:26 am

Didge wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Didge wrote:It was Republicans, who were right wing more than Liberal that ended slavery

Woodrow Wilson may have brought about women the vote but is considered one of the worst Presidents for his racist policies, hardly a claim to liberalism.

Why do the left continually make such false claims to people of the past who were fundamentally right wing, who brought about changes? It shows it was people for the day who held right wing views that brought about progression.
Why do they disingenuously try to deceive people with lies claiming liberals changed America for the better when this is not the case?

Center left is about as scary as it gets thinking it can force its views onto society to the extent it heads into the Stalinist direction, that would take freedoms away from people. The right is also and can be as bad, but the center, or center right know how to find balance. Only in modern terms over a few decades can you truly associate liberalism to the Democrats.

You will never get away with invented history whilst I am on this forum

The Republicans were liberal where it counted -- they were liberal on the issue of freedom and abolishing slavery. The Republicans of the late 19th century also had no problem with the government having lots of power -- that's why they wouldn't let the South secceed. We may be getting a bit into the differences in the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" in different countries, but it's a common mistake to assume the Republicans have always been conservative and the Democrats have always been liberal.
False, their views were very much Right wing Conservatism

The Republicans didn't actually start to adopt the label of "conservative" until around the time of the Great Depression, before which the Democrats were actually more the party of "small government" than the GOP was. But then along came FDR who was ready to try some socialist economic theories to remedy the Depression, which also greatly expanded the role of government. As a reaction to this, the Republicans found backers in big business and the wealthy class, which didn't want to fund these socialist programs.
False, again the politics for the time were right wing and in no way Liberal, maybe you can point out all their Liberal policies

The Civil Rights Movement a few decades later completed the transformation. Pushed by civil rights leaders, who emphasized economic justice almost as strongly as equal rights, the Democrats committed to making America a nicer place to live for minorities with the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, and with another round of social benefits programs initiated by LBJ, became the party that was liberal on both economic issues and social issues.
Now you are getting into the true era of Liberalism in America

Again, as a response, the Republicans (many of whom initially supported the Civil Rights Act) began to seek the votes of white voters who felt that equal rights for minorities was a threat to their power. Southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and others switched parties.

I know most of the history, I am just appalled you try to claim Liberalism advanced much of American society, It never did and it was right wing Politicians that mainly progressed American society up until the civil rights movement

Sorry, Didge, you're wrong. Here are some key points from the 1956 Republican Party platform; you tell me whether these are left-wing or right-wing policies:

1. Provide federal assistance to low-income communities;

2. Protect Social Security;

3. Provide asylum for refugees;

4. Extend minimum wage;

5. Improve unemployment benefit system so it covers more people;

6. Strengthen labor laws so workers can more easily join a union;

7. Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of sex.

All seven of those points are now strongly championed by the Democratic Party.

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 5:12 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Didge wrote:

I know most of the history, I am just appalled you try to claim Liberalism advanced much of American society, It never did and it was right wing Politicians that mainly progressed American society up until the civil rights movement

Sorry, Didge, you're wrong. Here are some key points from the 1956 Republican Party platform; you tell me whether these are left-wing or right-wing policies:

1. Provide federal assistance to low-income communities;

2. Protect Social Security;

3. Provide asylum for refugees;

4. Extend minimum wage;

5. Improve unemployment benefit system so it covers more people;

6. Strengthen labor laws so workers can more easily join a union;

7. Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of sex.

All seven of those points are now strongly championed by the Democratic Party.

lol is that your list?

1956?

What about before?

That is what we are talking about and I said true liberalism starts to come about with the civil rights movement, but even then they still held many right wing policies in 1956

Did you miss out the many right wing views held for the time?

You see, this is what I mean about disingenuous, you take a few progressive views and claim people are liberal which is an insult, where like Woodrow Wilson, who brought women the vote was racist as can be in his policies. One or two policies does not make for being a Liberal. As again we only really saw this with the civil rights movement. I mean even with the end of slavery, did we see a push for equal rights for Blacks?
No, far from it.

So again this is what is so poor about the left, they try to claim off right wing people of the past as champions of the left.

That is wrong on every level

by Ben Reilly Thu Mar 17, 2016 5:34 am

Didge wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Didge wrote:

I know most of the history, I am just appalled you try to claim Liberalism advanced much of American society, It never did and it was right wing Politicians that mainly progressed American society up until the civil rights movement

Sorry, Didge, you're wrong. Here are some key points from the 1956 Republican Party platform; you tell me whether these are left-wing or right-wing policies:

1. Provide federal assistance to low-income communities;

2. Protect Social Security;

3. Provide asylum for refugees;

4. Extend minimum wage;

5. Improve unemployment benefit system so it covers more people;

6. Strengthen labor laws so workers can more easily join a union;

7. Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of sex.

All seven of those points are now strongly championed by the Democratic Party.

lol is that your list?

1956?

What about before?

That is what we are talking about and I said true liberalism starts to come about with the civil rights movement, but even then they still held many right wing policies in 1956

Did you miss out the many right wing views held for the time?

You see, this is what I mean about disingenuous, you take a few progressive views and claim people are liberal which is an insult, where like Woodrow Wilson, who brought women the vote was racist as can be in his policies. One or two policies does not make for being a Liberal. As again we only really saw this with the civil rights movement. I mean even with the end of slavery, did we see a push for equal rights for Blacks?
No, far from it.

So again this is what is so poor about the left, they try to claim off right wing people of the past as champions of the left.

That is wrong on every level

How about the entire presidency of Theodore Roosevelt? That particular Republican ushered in the Progressive Era in US history. Look it up.

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 5:51 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Didge wrote:

lol is that your list?

1956?

What about before?

That is what we are talking about and I said true liberalism starts to come about with the civil rights movement, but even then they still held many right wing policies in 1956

Did you miss out the many right wing views held for the time?

You see, this is what I mean about disingenuous, you take a few progressive views and claim people are liberal which is an insult, where like Woodrow Wilson, who brought women the vote was racist as can be in his policies. One or two policies does not make for being a Liberal. As again we only really saw this with the civil rights movement. I mean even with the end of slavery, did we see a push for equal rights for Blacks?
No, far from it.

So again this is what is so poor about the left, they try to claim off right wing people of the past as champions of the left.

That is wrong on every level

How about the entire presidency of Theodore Roosevelt? That particular Republican ushered in the Progressive Era in US history. Look it up.

Granted his domestic policies were progressive for the time but his foreign policies were not.

See you did it again and I have read much about American history, so no need for me to look up

by Ben Reilly Thu Mar 17, 2016 9:32 pm

Didge wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Didge wrote:

lol is that your list?

1956?

What about before?

That is what we are talking about and I said true liberalism starts to come about with the civil rights movement, but even then they still held many right wing policies in 1956

Did you miss out the many right wing views held for the time?

You see, this is what I mean about disingenuous, you take a few progressive views and claim people are liberal which is an insult, where like Woodrow Wilson, who brought women the vote was racist as can be in his policies. One or two policies does not make for being a Liberal. As again we only really saw this with the civil rights movement. I mean even with the end of slavery, did we see a push for equal rights for Blacks?
No, far from it.

So again this is what is so poor about the left, they try to claim off right wing people of the past as champions of the left.

That is wrong on every level

How about the entire presidency of Theodore Roosevelt? That particular Republican ushered in the Progressive Era in US history. Look it up.

Granted his domestic policies were progressive for the time but his foreign policies were not.

See you did it again and I have read much about American history, so no need for me to look up

You're making no sense now. If someone is conservative but enacts a policy that is liberal, that doesn't make the policy conservative. No more so than a liberal implementing a conservative policy makes the policy liberal.

So my list stands -- if the people who enacted them also held some conservative views, or enacted other policies that were conservative, or didn't enact other liberal policies besides the ones they did enact, it doesn't mean that the liberal policies they enacted somehow weren't liberal.

Case in point -- late in his second term, George W. Bush passed a law banning commercial exploitation of many U.S. Pacific island territories (the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument). It was a huge victory for environmentalists. Does that mean that environmentalism is now a right-wing policy?

Of course not. The people who fought for that were liberals. They just got a conservative to sign it into law.

by Guest Fri Mar 18, 2016 12:30 am

No you are making no sense as again you go off right wing politicians as your champions

That makes the least sense at all

Your list stands for 1959 which is after your views on the first post

I said around the time of the civil rights movement is when you really see todays liberalism, except many have turned into regressives

So you keep poorly moving the goal posts

The funniest thing is that you are so quick to slate the UK, but the moment when the shoe is on the other foot you get abusive and defensive

maybe you will start to learn

by 'Wolfie Fri Mar 18, 2016 7:35 am

YOU really do need to look up the actual meaning of "Liberalism", oh Doddery one !!!

You are obviously confusing liberal thought, liberal minded politicians and liberal policies with "Liberalism"..

LIBERALISM is actually a right whinge conservative political philosophy, espoused by the current governments in Australia and New Zealand, and the former Stephen Harper government in Canada.

LIBERAL PARTY politicians are more closely allied to the American Repub's and the British Tories, than they are to any liberal-minded Democrat or Labour Party pollies..

geek

by Guest Fri Mar 18, 2016 7:39 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

YOU really do need to look up the actual meaning of "Liberalism", oh Doddery one !!!

You are obviously confusing liberal thought, liberal minded politicians and liberal policies with "Liberalism"..

LIBERALISM is actually a right whinge conservative political philosophy, espoused by the current governments in Australia and New Zealand, and the Stephen Harper government in Canada.

LIBERAL PARTY politicians are more closely allied to the American Repub's and the British Tories, than they are too any liberal-minded Democrat or Labour Party pollies..

Not confused over anything

Show anywhere that I have on my views?

You see this is why you are such an ignorant regressive

You make unfounded claims you cannot back up

You also inherantly wrong on the associations as well

The Tories are more in line with Democrats

When you break down the parties (and their leaders) by policy, it's easy to see why.

[th]Policy[/th][th]Republican Party[/th][th] [/th][th]U.K. Conservatives(Cameron)[/th][th] [/th][th]Democratic Party(Obama)[/th]

Abortion	Oppose	Support, but limit	Support
Death penalty	Support	Oppose	Support
Same-sex marriage	Oppose	Support	Support
Heavy cuts to government	Support	Support	Oppose
National healthcare policy	Oppose	Support	Support
Renewable energy	Oppose	Support	Support
Carbon tax	Oppose	Support	Support
Stricter border security	Support	Support	Not a priority
And most importantly:
(Semi-)Official color	Red	Blue	Blue

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/08/how-conservative-would-uk-conservatives-be-us/67930/

by 'Wolfie Fri Mar 18, 2016 7:57 am

ONCE again Dodge proves how little he knows about contemporary politics...

JUST goes to prove that having a degree in History doesn't necessarily make one an expert in politics..

Laughing

by Guest Fri Mar 18, 2016 8:02 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:ONCE again Dodge proves how little he knows about contemporary politics...

JUST goes to prove that having a degree in History doesn't necessarily make one an expert in politics..

Once again for the second time you make a unfounded claim you cannot back up

lol

by Tommy Monk Fri Mar 18, 2016 5:21 pm

Lord Foul wrote:and, perhaps more germane to the point...who provides the ammunition for the far right to feed on....

answer ...the left

lets look at what merkel "really said"

from the start

I dont give a damn what you (the people of germany) think I'm going to do this

and whats more, never mind the consequences (since as your leader I'm a rich person they dont affect me)
and

I'm going to keep on doing it whether you like it or not..

and if it causes problems and a few of your women get raped and your homes robbed etc etc etc etc ...I dont care.

so F**k you people of germany......I'm going to do it "my way"

and then you wonder why.........................................

does it never occur to you that the left are actually MORE dictatorial than the right....
the left thinks it knows whats best , and you can damn well suck it up.....

and folks wonder when "enough is enough"

Democracy anyone...!?

Why do some try to tell us that a vote against this clear fascistic dictatorial affront to democracy, is somehow a vote for party's who support some sort of fascistic and dictatorial affront to democracy...!?

by 'Wolfie Sat Mar 19, 2016 5:56 am

Didge wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:ONCE again Dodge proves how little he knows about contemporary politics...

JUST goes to prove that having a degree in History doesn't necessarily make one an expert in politics..

Once again for the second time you make a unfounded claim you cannot back up

lol

SO, Dodge...

WHEN are you going to stop misusing the term "Liberalism" ?

OR admit thaat you don't actually know what you're talking about.. jocolor

by 'Wolfie Sat Mar 19, 2016 5:59 am

Tommy Monk wrote:

Democracy anyone...!?

Why do some try to tell us that a vote against this clear fascistic dictatorial affront to democracy, is somehow a vote for party's who support some sort of fascistic and dictatorial affront to democracy...!?

"Fascistic" !?!

IS THAT even a proper word ?
IT just looks so awkward !

by Guest Sat Mar 19, 2016 5:59 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Didge wrote:

Once again for the second time you make a unfounded claim you cannot back up

lol

SO, Dodge...

WHEN are you going to stop misusing the term "Liberalism" ?

OR admit thaat you don't actually know what you're talking about..

Show me where you claim I have misused it?

It does help if you cannot back up where you claim something I have said, and then reason your views as to why you think its wrong.

So I guess you need to put up or you will look very silly I guess

by Andy Sat Mar 19, 2016 7:59 am

eddie wrote:Boris is an English Trump. A twin.
They're separated at birth.

Trump is the afterbirth.

by eddie Sat Mar 19, 2016 9:54 am

Handy Andy wrote:
eddie wrote:Boris is an English Trump. A twin.
They're separated at birth.

Trump is the afterbirth.

Yeah I could go along with that lol!

by Tommy Monk Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:19 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Democracy anyone...!?

Why do some try to tell us that a vote against this clear fascistic dictatorial affront to democracy, is somehow a vote for party's who support some sort of fascistic and dictatorial affront to democracy...!?

"Fascistic" !?!

IS THAT even a proper word ?
IT just looks so awkward !

So you want to pick up on a typo but ignore the substance of yhe post...!?

by Victorismyhero Sat Mar 19, 2016 1:56 pm

adjective
4.
Also, fascistic
[fuh-shis-tik] . of or like fascism or fascists.

from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fascistic

there ya go tommy.......

by Tommy Monk Sat Mar 19, 2016 2:20 pm

Yes I know it is a word... thanks... I was just just trying to highlight that twats diversionary waffle...

by Sponsored content

This Is what happens when Leftist Governments Do Not Listen To the Genuine Concerns of People

This Is what happens when Leftist Governments Do Not Listen To the Genuine Concerns of People

Re: This Is what happens when Leftist Governments Do Not Listen To the Genuine Concerns of People

Re: This Is what happens when Leftist Governments Do Not Listen To the Genuine Concerns of People

Re: This Is what happens when Leftist Governments Do Not Listen To the Genuine Concerns of People

Re: This Is what happens when Leftist Governments Do Not Listen To the Genuine Concerns of People

Re: This Is what happens when Leftist Governments Do Not Listen To the Genuine Concerns of People

Re: This Is what happens when Leftist Governments Do Not Listen To the Genuine Concerns of People

Re: This Is what happens when Leftist Governments Do Not Listen To the Genuine Concerns of People

Re: This Is what happens when Leftist Governments Do Not Listen To the Genuine Concerns of People

Re: This Is what happens when Leftist Governments Do Not Listen To the Genuine Concerns of People

Re: This Is what happens when Leftist Governments Do Not Listen To the Genuine Concerns of People

Re: This Is what happens when Leftist Governments Do Not Listen To the Genuine Concerns of People

Re: This Is what happens when Leftist Governments Do Not Listen To the Genuine Concerns of People

Re: This Is what happens when Leftist Governments Do Not Listen To the Genuine Concerns of People

Re: This Is what happens when Leftist Governments Do Not Listen To the Genuine Concerns of People

Re: This Is what happens when Leftist Governments Do Not Listen To the Genuine Concerns of People

Re: This Is what happens when Leftist Governments Do Not Listen To the Genuine Concerns of People

Re: This Is what happens when Leftist Governments Do Not Listen To the Genuine Concerns of People

Re: This Is what happens when Leftist Governments Do Not Listen To the Genuine Concerns of People

Re: This Is what happens when Leftist Governments Do Not Listen To the Genuine Concerns of People

Re: This Is what happens when Leftist Governments Do Not Listen To the Genuine Concerns of People

Re: This Is what happens when Leftist Governments Do Not Listen To the Genuine Concerns of People

Re: This Is what happens when Leftist Governments Do Not Listen To the Genuine Concerns of People